I definitely want to reject chain stores.
82quuu-PGO
Posts: 219 ✭✭✭
Hello, explorers.
Recently, there have been an increasing number of rogues applying for chain stores as candidates, and I am having trouble reviewing them.
It is becoming irreversible because it is approved when you take your eyes off it.
If you are nearby, you may be able to request deletion, but if you are far away or in an unfamiliar place, you can't do that either.
Continuing with "other disapproval criteria" will affect the reviewer's evaluation, so is there a way to reliably reject it?
At the same time, could you also think about retraining low-level explorers and eliminating invalid spots?
Please lend me your wisdom.
Tagged:
Comments
Once a chain store is accepted, removal requests will not work - "not eligible ever" is not a removal reason. The best course of action is probably to keep on reviewing honestly and per the guidelines, which may temporarily affect one's ratings if there's a group voting otherwise. Try engaging with the local community as much as possible and educating those newer submitters: I don't have much luck in that arena, because whenever I point out that something isn't eligible, I'm generally met with a response like "well they get accepted so I'll keep nominating them."
Except, their local community—which are Japanese players—are now treating chain stores as "acceptable" after generic business was removed from rejection reasons.
Unless Niantic do something, they're only letting players to add even more Schrödinger Wayspots to their database.
This is the case of Japan.
In Japan, there are many cases where privately-owned coffee shops have franchise agreements with manufacturers.
Of course it has its own store name.
Since stores that are expanding nationwide (Komeda Coffee, Hotto Motto, etc.) have appeared, I think that it is a bit of a candidate.
Unpopular investigators hide the facts about chain stores in an attempt to deceive judges.
If the judges are also on the same level as them, their civility will be reflected in the judgment.
If you say it, it's just "conveniently twisting the interpretation".
I think it's a shame for Japanese explorers.